Amelia Bloomer

FITZGERALD writes:

I have been too busy on the road to weigh in on the whole corset/bra controversy. I was surprised no one commented on what drove the shift from corsets to bras. Bras were part of a general movement of less restrictive women’s clothing, a movement which included the Rational Dress Society and Amelia Bloomer, who said, “When you find a burden in belief or apparel, cast it off.”

The most ironic aspect of the bra burning – it did happen, I believe, but it was only very brief and greatly amplified by the press – is that the bra was itself a feminist reaction to the corset. Anyone care to weigh in on how the bra after the sixties went from a basically functional “foundation” to exceedingly sensual attire in the last twenty years?

Here’s some history from Wikipedia:

The evolution of the bra from the corset was driven by two parallel movements: health professionals’ concerns about the cruelly constraining effects of the corset, and the clothing-reform movement of feminists, who saw that greater participation of women in society would require emancipation from corsetry. Prominent amongst these were the Rational Dress Society, the National Dress Reform Association, and the Reform Dress Association.

Although there were a number of voices warning about the considerable health risks of corsets, the health professions were generally muted, and in any case women ignored ‘unfashionable’ advice. The health professions concentrated more on psychosomatic complaints, which were in fact probably related to corsetry. Ill health was considered synonymous with femininity, and a pale and sickly demeanour, normative. (Fictional heroines often died from tuberculosis, or “consumption.” This made them pale and kept them immobile.) Corsets were supposed to provide both physical and moral support.

Some physicians ignored colleagues who felt corsets were a medical necessity because of women’s biology and the needs of civilized order. The physicians who raised the alarm pointed to nausea, bowel disturbances, eating disorders, breathlessness, flushing, fainting, and gynecological problems. Bed rest was a common prescription for the ‘weaker sex’, which of course implied relief from corsetry.

Women’s interest in sport, particularly bicycling, forced a rethinking, and women’s groups called for ’emancipation garments’.Elizabeth Stuart Phelps urged women to ‘burn the corsets!’ in 1874, a foreshadowing of 1960s ‘bra burning’ (see below). Indirectly and directly, sports empowered women in other social climates.

Not surprisingly, corsetieres fought back, embellishing their products to be frilly and feminine in the 1870s. Advertising took on overtones of erotic imagery, even if in practice they acted as a deterrent to sexuality, especially when they started appearing in men’s magazines, stressing cleavage and bare arms (then taboo). It is not clear whether parents actively corseted their children to prevent them exploring their own sexuality. Dolls assumed the corseted image, implanting an image of the ‘ideal’ female form. Corsets certainly reinforced the image of a weaker sex, unable to defend themselves, and a challenge to disrobe.

In practice, early brassieres made little market penetration. They were expensive, and only educated wealthy reformers wore them to any extent.

American women who made important contributions included Amelia Bloomer (1818–1894) (“When you find a burden in belief or apparel, cast it off.”) and Dr. Mary Edwards Walker (1832–1919).”

And, there is this:

The Rational Dress Society was an organisation founded in 1881 in London. It described its purpose thus:

The Rational Dress Society protests against the introduction of any fashion in dress that either deforms the figure, impedes the movements of the body, or in any way tends to injure the health. It protests against the wearing of tightly-fitting corsets; of high-heeled shoes; of heavily-weighted skirts, as rendering healthy exercise almost impossible; and of all tie down cloaks or other garments impeding on the movements of the arms. It protests against crinolines or crinolettes of any kind as ugly and deforming….[It] requires all to be dressed healthily, comfortably, and beautifully, to seek what conduces to birth, comfort and beauty in our dress as a duty to ourselves and each other.

Please follow and like us: